The Logic of Noam Chomsky

Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011. To: Noam Chomsky. Subject: Your remarks on 9/11 Conspiracy on KPFA

Dear Mr. Chomsky: I was dismayed to hear you say that it “just wasn’t logical” that, if Bush Administration officials were involved, they would chose Saudis as their co-conspirators. So, is it the case now that logic can replace an investigation of the facts and circumstances? Shall the defense attorney in a homicide investigation make his case by saying that it just isn’t logical his client would commit murder?

The 911 Commission investigation was a sham, run by Condoleezza Rice’s handpicked crony (Philip D. Zelikow — Executive Director/Chair of the 9/11 Commission), and it failed to account for the collapse of the towers. I would say that those were the obvious facts of the case. If you have no doubts about the veracity and thoroughness of the 911 Commission Report than I would ask you to take a look at the work of David Ray Griffin. If you do have any doubts you should join the call for a new, and independent investigation.

Yours sincerely,

Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 6:37 PM. Subject: RE. Your remarks on 9/11 Conspiracy on KPFA

Dear Mr. Chomsky: Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, your characterization of the investigations as extensive is very wide of the mark when it comes to the official investigation. If I may be allowed a follow-up; if the investigations “do not point the finger directly at anyone,” it is because the official investigation is, in fact, a cover-up and was never designed to get at the truth.

On a separate matter, I am sorely disappointed to hear that you feel nothing short of insanity can account for the actions of Bush & Co. in directing attention to OBL and the Saudi hijackers in the days immediately after 9/11.. . (Chomsky posits that clearly, if the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, they would have chosen Iraqis to be the hijackers, not Saudis. It was Iraq they wanted to blame and invade. Therefore, if Bush & Co. were complicit, nothing short of insanity could account for them selecting Saudis instead of Iraqis. Ergo, since Bush and Co. are not insane, they could not be complicit. Such is the logic of Noam Chomsky). I hope it isn’t impatience with me that drives you to the insanity defense. As I recall, it wasn’t Saudis, per se, that were blamed but a group of Muslim fanatics supposedly led by a renegade, exiled Saudi. I see no problems for Bush & Co. here.

Wasn’t it remarkable how they had everyone’s picture and practically their bio on the front page inside two days? Not long before 9/11 OBL had been a CIA asset. But you know this. Besides, who else would the CIA use except Saudis? We set-up their intelligence operations. We set them up, come to think of it. My recollection is that, after flying all members of the Bin Laden family out of the country the next day, the Bushies wasted no time in beginning to talk about Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

If we can’t agree that the official 9/11 Commission report is fatally flawed, we might at least agree on who benefited from 9/11? It wasn’t the people of the United States or the people of Afghanistan or Iraq, but some people made a lot of money and Bush’s approval rating shot up.

Yours sincerely,


Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:52 PM
To: Chomsky
Subject: Re: Your remarks on 9/11 Conspiracy on KPFA

Dear Mr. Chomsky: It is not a matter of logic, speculation or conjecture. It is a matter of a deeply flawed 911 Commission Report: that is the whole point and substance. There has been an obvious cover-up, or don’t you think so? In any case, you have failed to make your case; you have set-up straw men just to knock them down.

Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 11:22 AM. To: Noam Chomsky. Subject: Re: Your remarks on 9/11 Conspiracy on KPFA

Dear Mr. Chomsky: Yes, and governments also lie. I don’t see why we should start with logic rather than evidence. With all due respect, I can’t follow your argument because your reasoning is circular and your logic is not supported by the evidence. Upon re-reading your reply, however, I do clearly see that you are accusing the Bush Administration of obstruction of justice, and complicity in a cover-up, when they flew the Bin Ladens out of the country before they could be questioned. For a crime of the magnitude of 9/11 that is treasonable. If you have the courage of your convictions (and your logic) you should call out Bush & Co. on the obstruction and cover-up charges. Do you agree so far? But truly, when all is said and done, it is not a matter of logic or even evidence; it’s a matter of perception.

Thank you for your patience. I will mull over your logic some more but I must admit I prefer a good investigation.

Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 2:18 PM
To: Noam Chomsky
Subject: Re: Your remarks on 9/11 Conspiracy on KPFA

Dear Mr. Chomsky, Thank you for your reply. What do you think is important?

Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 3:23 PM
To: Noam Chomsky
Subject: Re: Your remarks on 9/11 Conspiracy on KPFA

Dear Mr. Chomsky, What is important to take away from the events of 9/11? What is important to understand about what occurred, and how it could have occurred?

At 12:46 AM 4/20/2011, you wrote:

Dear Mr. Chomsky: We all agree the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented; even the 9/11 Commission agrees. The attacks would, in fact, have been prevented except that Standard Operating Procedure was not followed on the day of 9/11. It is because SOP was not followed that the attacks succeeded. It doesn’t take a room full of generals and military intelligence to figure that out. It is precisely because SOP was not followed by our security agencies, that it is, as you say, “a historical event, so that there are endless loose ends, unexplained coincidences, etc.”

You might, along with the generals, ask why SOP wasn’t followed on that day. There is no need to continue discussing the gross incompetence and criminal negligence of the NSA and NORAD (that is what you’re talking about, isn’t it?) because there is a very simple, and logical explanation. SOP wasn’t followed because the events of 9/11 were orchestrated by individuals in positions of authority at the highest levels of the CIA, the FBI, the DOD and the White House. There is really no need to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when there is one explanation that makes sense of all the “endless loose ends, unexplained coincidences, etc.”

Not one person lost their job or was even demoted after the greatest security failure since Pearl Harbor. How do you and the generals explain that? You know about the secret government and American Empire well, you saw it in action on 9/11.

If I may refer back to your “logic” regarding the Saudi hijackers may I point out again that there was never any accusation in the press, or anywhere, of complicity by the Saudi government or it’s agents. That so many Saudis were named never created even a PR problem for Bush & Co. despite Michael Moore’s best efforts in Fahrenheit 9/11. I have mentioned your “logic” in this regard to several people who vividly remember the events of 9/11 and they were literally astounded that any one would propose the idea. And may I point out that it would not have been enough to have Iraqi’s among the hijackers, you would have needed paid agents of the Iraqi government to be present in order to make your case. Just how easy do you think it would be to gather up a group of paid agents of the Iraqi government and have them enter the US and go to flight school? With Saudi’s it was, apparently, no problem. It seems we may not need the insanity defense after all.

You airily dismiss the 9/11 Commission as just another flawed government commission. You admit Bush and Cheney are at least guilty of obstruction of justice in allowing OBL’s relatives, et al, to be flown out of the country but don’t think it worthwhile to pursue. Is the President above the law?

There is no need to even refer to the controlled demolition of the WTC towers to refute your defense of Bush & Cheney. I want to live in a world where people are held accountable for their actions and the rule of law is given more than just lip service. Regarding the discovery of anything new I am going to forward an article that may contain some items that have escaped your attention.

Yours sincerely,